Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

User:Wikiwatcher1 has uploaded many good images to both Commons and Wikipedia but has a long history of having images deleted for failing to present adequate evidence that the copyright status he asserts is correct. In some cases, the copyright status he asserts has been easily disproven. (Multiple conversations have been held with him about these practices, as can be seen at the links that will follow.) A contributor copyright investigation was opened here to evaluate his uploads to ensure that those which were not verifiably free were addressed. After the CCI was requested, and since its opening, he has continued uploading content of dubious provenance to both projects. As his images are beginning to be scrutinized and removed from Commons, he is seeking to transfer them here. See Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/July and Media copyright questions. This raises concerns that he may have decided to upload some of these images here, rather than Commons, to avoid the scrutiny his work has been receiving. See, another case where he presumes that the content must be usable without seeming to do the diligence necessary to verify.

The loose standards of upload are an issue in and of themselves, but as the deletion debates and discussions in the following subsection will evidence, Wikiwatcher1 is not open to having these errors pointed out to him. Rather than adjusting his practices to conform, he entrenches and defends. His interest in adding the content seems to override the core policy that the content must be free. His continuing to push boundaries, and resisting clean up of his work, is disruptive.

Specifics
For example, he uploaded with a claim of pre-1978, without evidence cited as the upload source didn't say anything about a date. It took 30 seconds of looking on the web to find the same image on the The Washington Post's website indicating that the picture was from 1979. See. He uploaded with a claim that Life did not renew copyright before 1985, which is untrue. See. was uploaded with the same faulty premise. See.

A recent Commons deletion was for a photo from the film The Drowning Pool, done by Warner in 1975. The image was from the NBC telecast of it in 1979. Other photos from the film are clearly marked as copyrighted in 1975 to Warner. When notified of this problem, the user changed the copyright tags from published before 1985 without license to published before 1978 without notice, leaving the author as NBC, not Warner Brothers, and declared the copyright issue resolved. Another was for a Michael Douglas which the user had declared to be pre-1985 with no copyright application. The photo is easily found and recognized as being from Fatal Attraction by Paramount in 1987 and not the mythical "studio" of the Film still article.

During this debate, the uploader tried defending a photo with two licenses and a clearly marked copyright notice on an uncropped copy of the photo with the idea that "film still" would negate any visible copyright notice on the photo  was uploaded here as PD after being deleted at Commons when an identical copy of the photo had 1974 United Artists copyright information on it. During a Commons earlier in this year, the user declared public domain to be the default, stating the burden of proof of copyright was with those seeking to enforce it. This is diametrically opposite to the legal feedback received from the Foundation in December 2011. "" was used again later this year regarding a photo of The Beatles taken in the UK but licensed as US-pre 1978, no notice, which had to be removed from the FA here.

Additional evidence of disputed behavior

 * 1) Life didn't file any copyright renewals before 1985-two instances in this section where user doesn't admit error and posts, "Maybe someone can delete it before the Time-Life swat teams swoop in with helicopters and lawsuits. In any case, I've seen better looking horses."
 * 2) Response to James Garner deletion notice mentioned above, "However, since your "systematic investigation" found "evidence" in a Washington Post blog that it was actually an image from 1979, I'll defer to the blogger's source. The defense rests."
 * 3) Regarding the "Life" image deletions.
 * 4) An Irving Berlin-Dwight Eisenhower photo listed as PD-US government work.
 * 5) No source for photo other than link to image and "news source".  File copied to Commons under another name and was deleted there also.
 * 6) Photo of Natalie Wood licensed as PD and claimed to be so due to "film still".
 * 7) Photo licensed as PD; license changed to non-free by user.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

The desired outcome is that Wikiwatcher1 should continue adding usable content but stop pushing "edge" cases - that is, don't assume that a promo photo from a television show that ran until 1980 must have been published before 1978. Either verify it, or don't upload it. If you can't see the back, don't assert that a picture was published without a copyright notice. Don't indicate that copyright was not renewed without doing an exhaustive search to verify that it was not, and to provide details of any searches on the file template for the benefit of other editors. Not using content from without a thorough investigation of the photo's details.

Ideally, Wikiwatcher1 will agree to only upload content that is uncontroversially free and, if he is unsure if the content is uncontroversially free, to seek guidance at WP:MCQ first.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Copyrights
 * Image use

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC) (See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikiwatcher1 for replies.)
 * We hope (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I am very involved with copyright issues in Wikipedia, and have had a number of frustrating interactions with Wikiwatcher1. I find this summary to be accurate and consistent with my interactions with Wikiwatcher1. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to convince him to hone his doubts, but he is convinced to be ignorant and self-praiseworthy. I have nominated images that he uploaded in Commons, and even he just makes remarks that are not adequate enough to resist deletion, even if some images were kept as a result. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''


 * Response by Wikiwatcher1: I have no problem with the general requests for the "Desired outcome," but will clarify: I've already been doing the hardest one for a while now, that of adding scans of the back of photos, even though there is no guideline requiring that. In addition, I always do a complete search when renewal is the issue. And I always do a careful review of any photo uploaded. The term "uncontroversially," however, is vague and a problem, since there have been many cases of improper tagging for erroneous reasons that were all reverted, and many cases where the information or permission simply had to be revised. But all in all, I see no major problems, and at least the vast majority of uploaded files are fine and help provide needed lead images to bios.

However, some of the "specifics" given above are not correct:
 * Re: he may have decided to upload some of these images here, rather than Commons, to avoid the scrutiny his work has been receiving. This statement is incorrect as it was not "scrutiny" that was at issue, but improper tagging being allowed on the Commons by non-admins for erroneous reasons (see your links);


 * The James Garner photo and similar publicity photos that you found the same image with a copyright elsewhere should be clarified. The copyright law makes it clear that every photo needs to have the notice to keep protection, assuming they also filed a registration. Before the internet, if someone purchased a photo without a notice and registration, they obviously weren't expected to make sure no one else had the same photo with a notice. Even now, if you buy an original photo without a notice, you aren't expected to do that kind of search on the web beyond a basic copyright search.


 * The Life magazine uploaded images were explained numerous times to Moonriddengirl, with circles and arrows and links, that not finding their copyright was an innocent mistake. Actually, it was more Life's mistake, since they registered their photos using two different names. Why she keeps using that innocent mistake as an example of implied BF (that I claimed something which is "untrue",) is beyond me. She really owes me an apology at this point, besides thanking me for finding Life's oddball registrations.


 * The film industry is a $300 billion industry where studios are the factories. There are no "mythical" studios who took photos.


 * Re: the uploader tried defending a photo with two licenses and a clearly marked copyright notice on an uncropped copy of the photo with the idea that "film still" would negate any visible copyright notice on the photo. That is obviously silly and untrue. Negate?


 * re: my claim that without a copyright, "PD was the default." I didn't write the laws explaining that fact. I realize that many editors have expressed shock or amazement at that kind of statement, but so far no one has tried to prove it untrue. My phrasing might have been a bit too terse, but still seems correct.

In any case, if none of the above makes sense, it could be due to harmful vapors I breathed once while taking a photo.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

[Caveat: as far as I can remember I have no prior interaction with this user, but I may be mistaken.]

Copyright law is extremely complex and I am willing to believe at least some of these cases were simple mistakes among many uploads, such as the Life example - it is notoriously hard to conclusively establish a work was not registered, since it involves searching extensive records and making sure something isn't in it. The Michael Douglas case is more troubling: although the eBay description did make it sound like a publicity photo with no copyright notice, I would generally assume photos of actors/movie staff in the 1978-1989 period are copyrighted as they may be derived from films or other works with registered copyright, as turned out to be the case here. It's infeasible to examine all such registered works in detail, so it's necessary to be conservative.

Even more worrisome to me though, speaking as an adminstrator here and on Commons, is moving uploads to the English Wikipedia to avoid disputes with other Commons users. Regardless of who is at fault, this is not an acceptable strategy. Making media available to all projects is vital, and public domain images are likely to be moved to Commons eventually regardless, only deferring the issue (possibly to a time when the uploader has departed). Keeping a local copy after such a move is also bad practice because it leads to forking and divergence in file and file description page content over time. Moreover, if users are making problematic changes to tags, other users and images may be affected as well. Instead, Wikiwatcher1 should consult with others at commons:Commons:Village pump or commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems to ask for an investigation and ensure the problem is dealt with.

I also find the "PD by default" language troublesome, as it runs directly against the central commons:Commons:Precautionary principle used to determine inclusion on Commons. It may be the case that some images bearing a copyright notice are nevertheless in the public domain (I have encountered such images myself), but Wikiwatcher1 should refrain from shifting the burden of proof to those seeking to delete the image - they only have to show "significant doubt."

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Dcoetzee 09:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) PierreSelim (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Though I'm only a sysop on Commons

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. `